There’s a “Frank & Ernest” comic strip showing a chick breaking out of its shell, looking around, and saying, “Oh, wow! Paradigm shift!” Blame the late Thomas Kuhn. Few indeed are the philosophers or historians influential enough to make it into the funny papers, but Kuhn is one.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is indeed a paradigmatic work in the history of science. Kuhn’s use of terms such as “paradigm shift” and “normal science,” his ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt to acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological factors in science–all have had profound effects on historians, scientists, philosophers, critics, writers, business gurus, and even the cartoonist in the street.
Some scientists (such as Steven Weinberg and Ernst Mayr) are profoundly irritated by Kuhn, especially by the doubts he casts–or the way his work has been used to cast doubt–on the idea of scientific progress. Yet it has been said that the acceptance of plate tectonics in the 1960s, for instance, was sped by geologists’ reluctance to be on the downside of a paradigm shift. Even Weinberg has said that “Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science.” As one of Kuhn’s obituaries noted, “We all live in a post-Kuhnian age.” –Mary Ellen Curtin
Customer Reviews
The Paradigm Shift Revolution:
Kuhn’s theory has been met with lavish praise, nuanced criticism, vitriol and dismissal. This polemical book challenges assumptions about the way science has worked, and delineates the pattern of scientific progress in terms of changing patterns and modes of thought: normal (puzzle-solving) science, the build up of anomalies, and the introduction of new paradigms. Distilled to its essence, Kuhn argues that scientific study is not immune from the human intricacies that plague other fields of scholarship.
My major critiques are as follows:
1.) Many defenders of science as an endeavor dismiss Kuhn. I think Kuhn gives science too much credit. Kuhn was trained as a scientist, and is obviously aware of the great contributions that science has given to society, but he ignores the fact that science interlopes with other parts of society. It is not totally self-contained but has borrowed ideas from revolutions in other realms, such as the enlightenment.
2.) He sometimes falls into the trap ahistorical timelessness when discussing the notion that knowledge is not accumulated, but rather gestalt shifts govern revolution.
3.) He speaks in such vague language that its difficult to tease apart any real meaning. Such is the nature of any theoretical approach, I suppose. For example, there are branches of scientific study that do just accumulate knowledge, he ignores them and paints with broad strokes. In the first few chapters he explains that he’s not talking about applied science, but in doing so avoids having to address technological advances spurring scientific change (see PCR technology, DNA sequencing etc.)
Kuhn’s argument has its deficiencies but it provides a lens through which to view scientific advancement. I cringe at attempts to use Kuhn to attack science as a study or ridicule it. Science has no monopoly on truth, but it happens to be an extremely important endeavor. None of this was Kuhn’s intent. He was just trying to describe his observations. Apparently he did something right because its still being cited, published, and reviewed into the 21st century.
Most highly overrated book in philosophy?:
It seems that most people think the philosophy of science begins and ends with Kuhn. Most of these people have never read the book, even fewer have read it critically, and fewer still are familiar with any significant amount of science or its philosophy beyond The Book.
It was greedily latched onto by many mainly because it is wrongly perceived as having somehow placed science on the same (presumptive) level of subjectivity as non-scientific intellectual endeavors like literary criticism.
Thus, while there is merit in the book the uses to which it has been put are execrable. In practice it has done nothing more for society than make people feel good about the fact that they don’t understand science and mathematics even to the point of avoiding truly dangerous ignorance.
As with philosophy of science in general (which I love and respect), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was and is largely ignored by those actually _doing_ science. Without Kuhn’s assurance that they’re making progress, scientists somehow manage to continue bringing us things like the human genome, cures and treatments for diseases you’ve never heard of, broadband internet, laser surgery, memory-foam matresses, HDTV, etc.
Science works. It is up to philosophers to explain why and lend helpful analysis and clarity. If philosophers can’t explain why Science works, then it is Philosophy that has failed, not Science.
It would be redundant for me to recap the specific criticisms of Kuhn ably covered by other reviewers such as “Delendus est Griffinus”, not to mention most of the top philosophers and scientists in the last 35 years.
To sum up: The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions does not claim what most people think it claims. The boldest of the book’s claims are dubious, fallacious and/or based on factually incorrect or selective analyses of history. The remainder is an interesting and perhaps useful corrective to overly simplistic analyses of the process and history of science. The book does _not_ constitute a “paradigm shift” in thinking about or practicing science.
Personally, I think it will be largely an historical footnote in another decade or two. To some extent it already is, except to those operating _outside_ the mainstream of both science and the philosophy of science.
You don’t need to read this book, but please, don’t trust me!
Instead, read an anthology like Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. You’ll find all the Kuhn you need there, along with a more realistic idea of the spectrum of thinking in the philosophy of science. In that book Kuhn makes up ~60 of 1379 pages, which is on the order that the importance and “revolutionary” impact of his ideas deserve.
Review:
It is an interesting book that stretches the thought about how science evolves and the nature of that evolution/revolution. Thought provoking. Stimulating. A good thought framing piece to set a context around scientific exploration.
Book review:
The best book if one wants to learn about the history of science and theory. A difficult read but worth every sentence. Profound and foundational. Must read for all doctoral students!!
Structur of Scientific Revolutions:
Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is a must read for anyone studying the events at which a scientific theory no longer answers all the new observations — Newton’s laws of motion and Einstein’s of gravity are often cited as classical examples — and a new set of paradigms is developed. Unfortunately I lost the copy I had when taking a course in History of Science, am glad that it’s still in print and to have it back in my library.
